Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the minister of the environment has said.

Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.

The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming.

"Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past, and as such we are invoking our legal right to withdraw from Kyoto," Mr Kent said in Toronto.

He said he would be formally advising the United Nations of his country's intention to pull out.

'Impediment'

He said the cost of meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): "That's $1,600 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent liberal government".

He said that despite this cost, greenhouse emissions would continue to rise as two of the world's largest polluters - the US and China - had not signed the Kyoto agreement.

"We believe that a new agreement that will allow us to generate jobs and economic growth represents the way forward," he said.

Mr Kent's announcement came just hours after a last-minute deal on climate change was agreed in Durban.

"The Kyoto Protocol is a dated document, it is actually considered by many as an impediment to the move forward but there was good will demonstrated in Durban, the agreement that we ended up with provides the basis for an agreement by 2015."

He said that though the text of the Durban agreement "provides a loophole for China and India", it represents "the way forward".

Canada's previous Liberal government signed the accord but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government never embraced it.

Canada declared four years ago that it did not intend to meet its existing Kyoto Protocol commitments and its annual emissions have risen by about once third since 1990.

For such a rich country with a developed infrastructure and industries with a measly population of 33 million for the 2nd largest country in the world full of resources............and we can't even continue our measly growth rate unless we ditch the Kyoto accords and the environment? We don't' even have free education and the worst national healthcare system of any first world country.

Man if other first world countries have this and are abiding the Kyoto accord and have more population with less resources then why can't we. Its a rhetorical question, obviously we could. So it disgusts me and I await the arguments that justify this.....................................yeah **** with the environment, it has no group, no allegiance, no politics no boarder.

sirex

12-12-2011 08:29 PM

ya pretty sad we have all these resources and land and yet have rising unemployment.

Bullet Ride

12-12-2011 08:50 PM

Two words why Canada will never be able to meet the Kyoto protocol: Oil Sands. We have the worlds third largest oil reserve, but it's the largest reserve open to private investment. How are you supposed to increase oil production and reduce greenhouse emissions at the same time? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to justify the decision, I thinks it's pretty sad to be honest. I'm sure there's plenty of ways to improve the refining process used in the oil sands however the oil companies would probably end up charging us double what we pay per litre now because there's still some oil tycoons with their private, gold plated A380's on order.

calegrant

12-12-2011 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by South
(Post 1539100)

Man if other first world countries have this and are abiding the Kyoto accord and have more population with less resources then why can't we.

We could, but you answered it yourself....we have more resources and the means by which to harvest and process them. Comparing our situation to that of nations where the vast majority live well below the poverty line is simply unrealistic. If you wish for your standard of living to be maintained, it is going to take decades for the technology capable of making serious changes to be developed. Kyoto was done under great intentions, but suffered from huge flaws such as the labelling of some huge polluters (and damn wealthy) as developing holding them responsible for little. It also did not account for nations such as Canada with huge pools of resources, we're expected to just sit on them? Sorry, but that's not entirely realistic either.

Change needs to occur yes, but the punishments need to applied to private industry and those who are becoming billionaires not tax paying citizens.

South

12-12-2011 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullet Ride
(Post 1539119)

Two words why Canada will never be able to meet the Kyoto protocol: Oil Sands. We have the worlds third largest oil reserve, but it's the largest reserve open to private investment. How are you supposed to increase oil production and reduce greenhouse emissions at the same time? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to justify the decision, I thinks it's pretty sad to be honest. I'm sure there's plenty of ways to improve the refining process used in the oil sands however the oil companies would probably end up charging us double what we pay per litre now because there's still some oil tycoons with their private, gold plated A380's on order.

Yeah I know its sad. And like every year oil companies are like no the rising cost of oil is hurting us too! yet they keep posting record amounts of profits, which are going mostly to the executives. I think if our government regulated corporations in the oil business to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of executives then that profit can be reinvested into the corporation itself to increase growth and R&D, or cheaper fuel prices.

Or straight up, in my ideological mood, I would like to see our government nationalize the corporation. But that is it against our statues that gives corporations the rights of individuals, actually more rights than individuals. I mean look at Venezuela who nationalized the American oil corporations. That profit now has been turned into real change for society, maybe not cheaper oil but more social programs, such as subsidizing education and health, indirectly too with the help of Cuba giving its doctors and teachers in exchange for cheap oil. But as a pragmatist would never happen in this country, I only mention the possibility.

Nevertheless........we are out of kyoto accord, we will contribute to our own destruction for short term gains which what-ever political party will hijack and be like "look we are awesome we garanteed the forcasted growth!". While the rest of the world facepalms.

South

12-12-2011 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calegrant
(Post 1539128)

We could, but you answered it yourself....we have more resources and the means by which to harvest and process them. Comparing our situation to that of nations where the vast majority live well below the poverty line is simply unrealistic. If you wish for your standard of living to be maintained, it is going to take decades for the technology capable of making serious changes to be developed. Kyoto was done under great intentions, but suffered from huge flaws such as the labelling of some huge polluters (and damn wealthy) as developing holding them responsible for little. It also did not account for nations such as Canada with huge pools of resources, we're expected to just sit on them? Sorry, but that's not entirely realistic either.

Change needs to occur yes, but the punishments need to applied to private industry and those who are becoming billionaires not tax paying citizens.

Well in my original post I also linked and quoted that among the 140 countries that signed the accord, 30 were industrialized. Again I agree with the tax on citizens this accord brings, but if our government taxes the billionaires of corporations that public tax can be offset no? and when these resources we have can be developed but sustainably no? why do we have to cut corners to increase our growth even more? You think I or the rest of the world cares if our standard of living stays the same at the benefit of saving the environment? Again you said it yourself our standard of living is increasing but only for the elites and executives no?

"The right-of-center Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which has close ties to the energy sector, says Canada would be subject to penalties equivalent to C$14 billion ($13.6 billion) under the terms of the treaty for not cutting emissions by the required amount by 2012.

"It's a national disgrace. Prime Minister Harper just spat in the faces of people around the world for whom climate change is increasingly a life and death issue," said Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada.

The Conservatives took power in 2006 and quickly made clear they would not stick to Canada's Kyoto commitments on the grounds it would cripple the economy and the energy sector.

"Our government is abdicating its international responsibilities. It's like where the kid in school who knows he's going to fail the class, so he drops it before that happens," said Megan Leslie of the opposition New Democrats.

Canada is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the United States and is keen to boost output of crude from Alberta's oil sands, which requires large amounts of energy to extract.

Canada's former Liberal government signed up to Kyoto, which dictated a cut in emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. By 2009 emissions were 17 percent above the 1990 levels, in part because of the expanding tar sands development.

The announcement will do little to help Canada's international reputation. Green groups awarded the country their Fossil of the Year award for its performance in Durban.

It is understood he [Harper] is reluctant to damage Canada's booming oil sands sector. "

Bartacus

12-13-2011 03:36 PM

Climate change is a "life and death issue" For who!?!? And WHERE?!?! What a crock.

South

12-13-2011 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartacus
(Post 1539222)

Climate change is a "life and death issue" For who!?!? And WHERE?!?! What a crock.

You know you probably would find out if you typed that exact question into google.

I must admit that I dont know much about the Kyoto pact..so when I read that link, you cant choose to cut/paste certain parts of that report:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada on Monday became the first country to announce it would withdraw from the Kyoto protocol on climate change, dealing a symbolic blow to the already troubled global treaty.

Environment Minister Peter Kent broke the news on his return from talks in Durban, where countries agreed to extend Kyoto for five years and hammer out a new deal forcing all big polluters for the first time to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

"Canada, a major energy producer which critics complain is becoming a climate renegade, has long complained Kyoto is unworkable precisely because it excludes so many significant emitters.

As we've said, Kyoto for Canada is in the past ... We are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," Kent told reporters.

The right-of-center Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which has close ties to the energy sector, says Canada would be subject to penalties equivalent to C$14 billion ($13.6 billion) under the terms of the treaty for not cutting emissions by the required amount by 2012.

"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car truck, all-terrain vehicle, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle off every kind of Canadian road," said Kent.
Environmentalists quickly blasted Kent for his comments.

"The writing on the wall for Kyoto has been recognized by even those countries which are engaging in a second commitment," he said. Kyoto's first phase was due to expire at the end of 2012 but has now been extended until 2017.

Kent said Canada would work toward a new global deal obliging all major nations to cut output of greenhouse gases China and India are not bound by Kyoto's current targets.

-The Conservatives took power in 2006 and quickly made clear they would not stick to Canada's Kyoto commitments on the grounds it would cripple the economy and the energy sector.

Canada is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the United States and is keen to boost output of crude from Alberta's oil sands, which requires large amounts of energy to extract.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) said all major emitters had to agree to cuts so that Canada did not put itself at a disadvantage.

Canada's former Liberal government signed up to Kyoto, which dictated a cut in emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. By 2009 emissions were 17 percent above the 1990 levels, in part because of the expanding tar sands development.

Kent said the Liberals should not have signed up to a treaty they had no intention of respecting.

The Conservatives say emissions should fall by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, a target that CAPP president David Collyer said would oblige the energy sector to make sacrifices.

"It's a stretch and we'd be kidding ourselves if we said it wasn't," he told Reuters.

So based on the report, the decision to get out of Kyoto was in 2006 and if Canada will to stick with Kyoto, Canada has to pay a $14 billion penalty, for it cannot meet the emission amount required in this pact when India and China, 2 major emitters pays nothing?

Like I said earlier, I dont know much about the Kyoto pact but I think Peter Kent made a good call on this.. saving us the $14 billion ..

South

12-13-2011 04:25 PM

so let me get this straight. China and India two DEVELOPING nations are supposed to what exactly? remain poor? no sorry its a world effort, they have the most number of people, and per capita less pollution. By capita CANADA has one of the HIGHEST. They are ALLOWED to develop while we have to cut back. Does this put us at a disadvantage, who cares the environment is going to give a fly ****.

14 billion.......****ing nothing in relative terms to the GNP of Canada. Or the 1.7 trillion GDP this year.Or the 400 billion in exports this year? Or the five billion we spend in donations to other countries?

14 billion pffft, We pay that much a year for welfare.....oh wait let me guess that is too much too then huh? We are the laughing stock of the world. "Have to pull of every vehicle of the road to meet emissions", hmm I wonder why environmentalists blasted those comments. I WONDER.

Lets look at the long run now shall we? with us not in the Kyoto accord, the oil industry will expand even more, accelerating Canada's dependance on that dirty fossil fuel. Meanwhile because of this there is no incentive for company's to developed alternative resources that are sustainable and green.

"Canada is like the kid in class who knows hes going to fail so he drops out anyway"...........

Guys guys guys, its ok. As long as nothing affects you personally everything else in the world is complete bullshit to you. I get it. And honestly everyone in the world is laughing at us, should be ashamed that we sacrifice a global initiative so desperately needed, in favor of $14 billion which also will let our oil industry grow, thus satisfying Harpers energy freinds and Americas energy needs and putting more money in the hands of the rich. Hey have you heard they are already building a oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas?

Number one reason for pulling out is because we are America's bitch. They need our water, food, timber, and oil. Any official reason put forth by Canada for why is a white wash. We are the first country to withdraw from Kyoto. Pathetic. Should be ashamed if you voted for Harper.

"Canada is using Alberta’s dirty tar sands as an excuse to bully the European Union (EU) into watering down its climate change policies, leaving the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) in serious doubt.

This brewing transatlantic dispute over the tar sands stems from the likelihood that the EU could officially block the sale of Alberta oil in Europe given its high carbon content.

The European Commission is reportedly “readying its defenses for a legal fight with Canada.”

According to Reuters:

Last year, the EU appeared to be backing down on tar sands, but sources say negotiators for the 27-member bloc are becoming bolder as their scientific evidence becomes more robust.

“We are saying ‘be careful’, because Canada will not hesitate to take us to the WTO, so we have to have something rock-solid,” said an EU official.

“Canada has been lobbying the Commission and member states intensively to avoid a separate default value for fuel derived from tar sands.”

Although Europe receives very little of Alberta’s dirty oil at present, Greenpeace reports that exports are on the rise [pdf] (and particularly via US ports which may soon receive much more dirty oil from the Keystone XL project).

What worries European leaders is the mounting body of evidence which shows that tar sands oil has a carbon footprint somewhere between 23% [pdf] and 82% [pdf] higher than regular dirty European and US oil.

A deepening reliance on dirty energy sources also contradicts progressive EU policies, mainly: efforts to reduce carbon emissions by 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2020; and a new Fuel Quality Directive [pdf] which is being updated to require a reduction in the carbon content of transport fuels by 6% below 2010 levels by 2020. Additionally, recently released European Commission data shows that aggressive climate change objectives are achievable, ‘cost effective’ and will promote economic growth across Europe.

There are many groups that oppose the CETA, and probably even more groups that oppose the tar sands. The fact that Canadian negotiators are prepared to cancel negotiations over the Alberta tar sands shows that dirty energy lobbying efforts are not effective and that strong climate change policies are winning out in Europe. With mounting evidence showing that the tar sands are not an ethical project and that drilling for this oil is extremely destructive to the environment and climate, European leaders should both feel emboldened to stand up to fossil fuel lobby threats and to increase their commitments towards stronger carbon reduction goals."

If Europe can do it, we can too.

BMW_7

12-13-2011 05:41 PM

Global warming would benefit Canada, with a longer growing season and less energy expended heating homes and businesses in the winter.

Kyoto is a joke. It will never work since most people have figured out that the goal is wealth transfer.

Bartacus

12-13-2011 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by South
(Post 1539226)

You know you probably would find out if you typed that exact question into google.

In my defense, I was at work, where I can't view jack sh!t. :D I can do the Google searching, but a lot of the resulting pages get blocked by our webwasher filters. Reading that now. I just assumed it was more bullsh!t propaganda from the eco freaks.

South

12-13-2011 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMW_7
(Post 1539254)

Global warming would benefit Canada, with a longer growing season and less energy expended heating homes and businesses in the winter.

Kyoto is a joke. It will never work since most people have figured out that the goal is wealth transfer.